What They Believe: A militia is a group of citizens who come together to protect the country, usually during an emergency. Some militia extremists, however, seek to violently attack or overthrow the U.S. government. Often calling themselves “patriots,” they believe the government has become corrupt, has overstepped its constitutional limits, or has not been able to protect the country against global dangers.
This is what interests the FBI. No, I’m not making this up. The CIA coupled with DynCorp and the Clinton Global Initiative is toppling countries and trafficking in weapons, money, oil and humans in Haiti and North Africa, and the ATF has trafficked weapons to the Mexican cartels, and the FBI is all in a faint over stateside militias.
The operative word here is “seek.” Very few people actually seek something like that. All peaceable men want to reconcile and are slow to anger. But what we can conclude here is that if you believe in such a thing as the second amendment remedy, you’re an extremist and the FBI is interested in you.
And so the founding fathers would have been as well. But no one cares about history any more – certainly not the FBI.
George Webb has been prolific lately communicating many important things, and also providing groundbreaking analysis of the information he presents. You can visit his YouTube channel for yourself, and you should, every day. I want to link only two of his videos here, but in my opinion they are the most important videos he has done. Seriously, if you do nothing else today, you need to watch these two videos entirely.
Before I embed them below, I want to offer up a number of comments. I have a lot to communicate and I don’t know of another way to do it except to go in no particular sequential order. It’s my fervent hope that George reads this post and that you regularly watch George’s videos. If I can’t do anything else, I certainly can connect my readers to good men like George.
In the first video I link, George clearly says that he is receiving FBI help. I had suspected so from the outset. This lends credence to the idea that there are some patriots left inside the U.S. government, and that there is a war going on within the intelligence community.
George clearly believes, after cataloging the recent deaths associated with investigators of The Clinton Foundation, deaths I didn’t know about until watching the first video, that he will end up like those who have been killed. In other words, he is predicting his own death at the hands of the deep state. Watch the video and see for yourself.
Now, I don’t know about that, as neither I nor George is a “prophet or son of a prophet.” We don’t know the future. But what we do know is that these things are happening, and The Clinton Foundation and associated deep state actors should know too that we’re watching them. We’re watching their every move, at least those we can see.
If anything happens to George, we know where to look. If anything happens to me, you’ll know where to look. Like George, I don’t hide behind a nom de guerre. I’m not anonymous – I write under my own name. My son Joseph and I have discussed this before. Rehearsing the danger I believe it is for me to write about these issues, after learning about the issues surrounding #Pizzagate, the deep state, the rogue generals and The Clinton Foundation, I said that I simply cannot turn away. Joseph encouraged me that I cannot, and reminded me of Psalm 1:1. “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.”
But I have counsel for George. He also clearly said that he isn’t a “gun person” and never has been. He seems almost resigned to death at the hands of the deep state. As I said, neither of us knows the future, but it’s our responsibility to act on our own behalf and engage in meaningful self defense.
All human institutions and interactions are couched and framed in terms of covenant. All of them, whether we choose them to be or not. Marriage isn’t a chance to do your own thing regardless of promises you’ve made to your spouse. There are promises and penalties associated with the vows you made. Families are framed as a covenant. A man cannot simply do to his children as he sees fit, even if that means abusing them. There are penalties associated with that, as there should be.
Your job is a covenant, where you promise to provide work in payment for a wage. The state is also a covenant, whether the government wants it to be or not. Our particular covenant is the U.S. constitution. The government must abide by it just as we must. On too many occasions to catalog, the government has broken covenant with the American people. The things George is discussing all constitute breakage of the covenant. The guilty must be punished. There are consequences along with promises in the covenant.
As for George, listen to me very carefully. You are in covenant with God as well. He expects you, no, He demands that you protect your own life to the extent you can. He has made you in His own image, and He doesn’t take its careless loss lightly. As for those FBI agents who are helping you with the information and analysis, if they have turned you loose with information and analysis but with no means to effect or training in self defense, they have done you an injustice.
Contact them and tell them I told you so. If they cannot or will not assist you in learning self defense, contact me and I will assist you. You must do this. It is your solemn obligation. Hear me, George. It is appointed to man once to die, and then the judgment (Hebrews 9:27). That time has been ordained by God from before the foundation of the world and cannot be changed. In the mean time, those who threaten should be wary of Herschel’s Dictum.
As for George’s assessment of what it will take to root out the problems, he is correct in all of his metrics. There are more, and I’m sure commenters can add to the list. I certainly could. Leaving this deep state in place is intolerable. But I have more confidence than George seems to have, whether this all gets done by Mr. Trump or not.
He mentions a lot of constitutional amendments, but skips over the second. The reason for the importance of the second amendment is that it retains our ability to hold our government accountable. George mentions a lot of threats, from Rogue generals such as David Petraeus (who is neck deep in all of this) – and he should have thrown in the murderer Stanley McChrystal too (see my posts on Ganjgal)- to La Raza, to DynCorp.
But as I said in an earlier post related to this, any army that tries to occupy or subjugate suburbia and rural America would get cut to pieces. You can throw drones, AI, and caches of weapons out the window. They are no good if there is no electricity to run them. They are all no good if the men to effect that subjugation all get shot. They are no good when the bread basket of America stops the food logistics to the inner cities of America. They are all no good when you realize that New York is a second away from disaster. All of the best laid plans fall when a hunter in the mountains of North Carolina wearing a ghillie suit uses a scoped, bolt action rifle, manifests his dislike for subjugation and them melts away into the landscape never to be seen again – until the next time.
I believe it won’t get to this point. For all his distasteful haughtiness, the adulterer Petraeus knows the carnage 20,000 AQI fighters can cause to the stability of a country. With tens of millions of AR-15 owners, It would be ten orders of magnitude worse in America and he knows it.
I have confidence that in some form or fashion, and at some point, righteousness will prevail.
Whereas Hillary can skate on perceived reckless conduct when Comey himself acknowledges it is “a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way,” gun owners also deemed guilty of recklessness now face a “terrifying new precedent,” per a Conservative Review analysis of the Supreme Court’s 6 -2 decision in the Voisine case.
“[T]he court ruled that crimes of recklessness rise to the same level as ‘misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence’ which preclude individuals convicted of such a crime from firearm ownership by federal law,” the article explains.
“Congress was not worried about a husband dropping a plate on his wife’s foot or a parent injuring her child by texting while driving,” Justice Clarence Thomas protested in his dissent.
Yea, we’ve discussed that case before. And I agree with David that the defendants were not the outstanding citizens you want for such cases, but of course that’s irrelevant. It often takes defendants that who are otherwise less than outstanding citizens to prove the larger point being made, i.e., rights applies to all men, not just the pretty people.
But it gets even worse than that. As we’ve seen, in the words of Justice Elena Kagan, “… the word “use” does not demand that the person applying force have the purpose or practical certainty that it will cause harm, as compared with the understanding that it is substantially likely to do so. Or, otherwise said, that word is indifferent as to whether the actor has the mental state of intention, knowledge, or recklessness with respect to the harmful consequences of his volitional conduct.”
Notice the words intention, substantial likelihood, and recklessness. The point is that this list of potential infractions that would prohibit firearms ownership can be construed to be virtually anything concocted by the mind of the executive. Stay away from law enforcement. Don’t ever involve them in anything. Give them wide berth.
As for Hillary, did you really think the administration would hold her accountable? I didn’t and said so to those around me. Laws apply to little people. If you’re reading this, you are a little person. Act and plan accordingly.
I guess this isn’t that surprising, but as the big legal fight heated up this week between Apple and the Justice Department over whether or not Apple can be forced to create a backdoor to let the FBI access the contents of Syed Farook’s iPhone, all of the major Presidential candidates have weighed in… and they’re all wrong. Donald Trump is getting the most attention. Starting earlier this week he kept saying that Apple should just do what the FBI wants, and then he kicked it up a notch this afternoon saying that everyone should boycott Apple until it gives in to the FBI. Apparently, Trump doesn’t even have the first clue about the actual issue at stake, in terms of what a court can compel a company to do, and what it means for our overall security.
This isn’t another Trump-bashing post. I’ve had my share, and it’s so easy. But in this case, every other presidential candidate – every other presidential candidate – is close to being as bad on the issue, and lacks even a basic clue as to what’s at stake.
There is also misunderstanding within the field who purports to comprehend the technology of the issue. This post at Zero Hedge is an example.
On the surface, this appears like valiant attempt by the CEO of the world’s most valuable company to stand up against the Big Brother state made so famous in the aftermath of the Edward Snowden revelations.
However, a quick peek beneath the surface reveals something far less noble and makes Tim Cook seem like you average, if very cunning, smartphone salesman.
According to the The Daily Beast’s Shane Harris, in a similar case in New York last year, Apple acknowledged that it could extract such data if it wanted to. But the real shocker is that according to prosecutors in that case, Apple has unlocked phones for authorities at least 70 times since 2008. (Apple doesn’t dispute this figure.)
As Harris observantly adds, “in other words, Apple’s stance in the San Bernardino case may not be quite the principled defense that Cook claims it is.”
To this, my oldest son Josh sends the following.
He doesn’t understand the subject matter. He’s in over his head and backing in to a predisposition.
Apple was unlocking phones years ago, when security feature such as system-wide encryption hadn’t been implemented. It was a different kind of “unlocking.” This isn’t a fight over keys to a single device. This is a fight over encryption, which the government doesn’t want any of us to have, because the government is run by political science and history majors.
Of note is the fact that any device from the 4th generation forward (beginning with 5s) is impossible – IMPOSSIBLE – to decrypt without the actual key, because Apple has moved encryption duties to a separate System On A Chip (SoC) that runs its own OS, is married to the device by UUID, and totally inaccessible.
The phone the FBI is freaking out over is a 5c, not a 5s.
The FBI doesn’t need the phone. They have what they need already. This is about encryption. The government needs an event they can point to and blame for encryption, and they’ve chosen this one.
This is the politics of control and power. To categorize it as a publicity stunt is disingenuous to the point of being dangerous.
Note that we’ve discussed here and here the weaknesses in random number generators and the ability to hone in on keys, but Apple has a feature that cuts the entire system off and erases data if this approach is tried beyond just a few random numbers.
Concerning this report, Josh also send the following.
The phone was in the possession of the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health in the hours after the attack. An idiot IT worker with the department performed a remote reset of the iCloud account attached to the device.
This disabled an assortment of services and functions on the phone, including automatic backups to iCloud, which the FBI seems to think would have been helpful, even though they’re also encrypted.
Bottom line. The fedgov has not asked for Apple to break into this phone. They have asked Apple to develop an approach that allows them to completely bypass all security, thus making them malleable to a FISA court ruling for any or all phones in the future.
All of your worst suspicions are true. This is the government at its most totalitarian.
The FBI has the e-mails of nearly all US citizens, including congressional members, according to NSA whistleblower William Binney. Speaking to RT he warned that the government can use information against anyone it wants.
One of the best mathematicians and code breakers in NSA history resigned in 2001 because he no longer wanted to be associated with alleged violations of the constitution.
He asserts, that the FBI has access to this data due to a powerful device Naris.
This year Binney received the Callaway award. The annual award was established to recognize those, who stand out for constitutional rights and American values at great risk to their personal or professional lives.
RT: In light of the Petraeus/Allen scandal while the public is so focused on the details of their family drama one may argue that the real scandal in this whole story is the power, the reach of the surveillance state. I mean if we take General Allen – thousands of his personal e-mails have been sifted through private correspondence. It’s not like any of those men was planning an attack on America. Does the scandal prove the notion that there is no such thing as privacy in a surveillance state?
William Binney: Yes, that’s what I’ve been basically saying for quite some time, is that the FBI has access to the data collected, which is basically the e-mails of virtually everybody in the country. And the FBI has access to it. All the congressional members are on the surveillance too, no one is excluded. They are all included. So, yes, this can happen to anyone. If they become a target for whatever reason – they are targeted by the government, the government can go in, or the FBI, or other agencies of the government, they can go into their database, pull all that data collected on them over the years, and we analyze it all. So, we have to actively analyze everything they’ve done for the last 10 years at least.